What should the government’s chief science officer position look like?

While the Liberal Party has committed to creating a new position of chief science officer, it’s still not entirely clear just what the job will entail.

Science Minister Kirsty Duncan’s mandate letter states that one of her priorities should be to name a chief science officer to “ensure that government science is fully available to the public, that scientists are able to speak freely about their work, and that scientific analyses are considered when the government makes decisions.”

Creating the role is partly a political response to the outcry over the past Conservative government’s treatment of federal scientists. But it’s not yet clear what the role, the scope of its mandate, or the strength and size of the office will be.

A departmental spokesperson said that Duncan still has much consulting to do, and there are a lot of decisions still to be made and work to be done in crafting the position.

“We’re going to take the time that it takes to put in place the right mechanisms, make sure the position works well and make sure that government science is in fact available going forward,” Camille Martel said.

Paul Dufour, an adjunct professor at University of Ottawa and expert in science and technology development, says he thinks the minister is likely to go with a model similar to New Zealand or the U.K. (New Zealand’s Science Officer, Sir Peter Gluckman, was in Ottawa in November 2015 to speak with Duncan and the media about his post).

“We’ve had it before. It’s not like this is new. We had an office of the science adviser,” Dufour told iPolitics.

Dufour was himself at one point the interim executive director of Canada’s Office of the National Science Adviser (an office scrapped by the Conservative government in 2008). “My big fear is you get a chief science adviser who comes in and doesn’t understand how politics works on the Hill… I think that would be very dangerous.”

At a recent panel looking at the question held by the Institute for Science, Society and Policy at University of Ottawa, Dufour said the core problem surrounding creating the position can be found in the Disney movie Frozen:

“The conclusion is the following question: do you want to build a snowman, or would you like to build something else?”

Snowmen tend to “have a structural/temporal flaw,” he said.

“They melt.”

In other words, it’s easy to make a position, but an institution that lasts and is effective is another matter.

“Many of our science advisory experiments — and they have been that— have all melted.”

The trick will be, he said, to learn from past failures.

He suggested the new Chief Science Officer should be non-partisan, as well as “on tap, not on top,” pointing to the recent experience in European Union of having a science adviser who was fired over her views on GMOs. But, crucially, it will need to be given enough resources, and the mandate will need to be clear. “A science adviser can go off in many, many different areas.”

According to Patrick Fafard, a University of Ottawa professor who studies health policy and federalism, what the position will look like depends on what problem the government wants to solve with the position.

“The government necessarily and inevitably and normally doesn’t speak with one voice on this,” he told iPolitics.

“Depending on who you ask, you get different versions. Some people preoccupied with big questions like climate change – and the government is clearly committed to dealing with climate change – would probably be looking along the lines of a chief science adviser.”

He warned that it’s a challenge having someone who has mandate to speak both to the public as well as provide advice to the prime minister and cabinet. On how to structure it though, he has an idea of what not to do.

But, Fafard was clear on one thing:

“It would be a big mistake to put that position in the PMO.”

Fafard also cautioned it’s a challenge having someone who has a mandate to both speak to the public and provide advice to the Prime Minister and cabinet.

Rees Kassen, another professor at the Institute for Science, Society and Policy, meanwhile is hoping that the new position is “seconded” from bureaucracy, saying that it’s crucial to “activate resources and a knowledge base outside of government.”

He said that if the Prime Minister decided he need a science adviser in his own office, “that would be a win for science.”

Kassen also hopes the new Chief Science Officer will advise MPs – he noted that only about eight per cent of current MPs – 28 of 338 – have science backgrounds. That means parliamentarians may need more science advice of their own.

Dufour suggested expanding their resources would be a good idea, and floated the idea of also creating provincial science officers. So far Quebec has one, but creating more could allow for greater role in science promotion and education — something provinces might take issue with if the new federal office oversteps too far into their domain.

Fafard said, though, of the options out there, it’s probably least likely that the Chief Science Office will deal with parliamentarians much at all.

“If I had to make a prediction, the scenario least likely now is the creation of a Parliamentary Science Officer because that was an idea linked to the NDP.”